Voluntary causing of hurt and intimidation during theft constitutes robbery under Section 390 IPC.

On May 10, 2012, three accused persons—A1 (Amar Bharadwaj), A2 (Ganesh Mahto), and A3 (Uma Shankar Yadav, the victim's domestic help)—trespassed into the residence of PW1

A1 and A2 immobilized PW1, threatened her with a kitchen knife, caused physical hurt by fist blows and smothering, and robbed ₹20–25 lakhs and jewelry

A3, who had worked there for years, facilitated the entry and fled the scene

A1 was arrested in Mumbai with cash and jewelry

A2 and A3 were arrested at New Delhi Railway Station in possession of stolen property

The Trial Court convicted them under Sections 452, 392/34, 411, and additionally Section 397 for A1

The Appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of lack of medical evidence, non-production of CCTV, and improper Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination

1. Whether the ingredients of robbery under Section 392 IPC were established in the absence of a formal Medical Legal Certificate (MLC)

2. Whether the non-production of CCTV footage and failure to match chance prints vitiated the prosecution's case

3. Whether the identification of A3 by PW1 was validly put to the accused during the Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement

4. Whether the Appellants were entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act

Section 390 of the IPC, which defines theft as robbery if the offender voluntarily causes hurt or fear of instant death

Section 319 IPC for the definition of "hurt" as bodily pain

Under Section 378 IPC, theft is established by taking property out of "possession," and proof of absolute ownership is not mandatory

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding "conduct" to admit the act of leading police to stolen property even if disclosure statements were technically inadmissible under Section 25

Precedents such as Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor regarding recoveries

Shahaja v. State of Maharashtra regarding conduct

The Court rejected the argument regarding the lack of an MLC, holding that the testimonies of PW1 and PW6 (a doctor friend) sufficiently proved "hurt" (swelling and pain) and "wrongful restraint" required for robbery

Regarding technical evidence, the Court accepted PW1 and the IO's explanation that the CCTV was non-functional, rendering its non-production irrelevant

The Court found that while disclosure statements were hit by Section 25, the conduct of the accused in possessing jewelry and cash (subsequently identified by the victim) and leading police to recoveries was admissible under Section 8

The Court dismissed the Section 313 Cr.P.C. challenge, noting that specific questions (Q2 and Q3) had indeed been put to A3 regarding his presence and employment at the house

The Court noted that A3’s breach of trust as a domestic help made the crime particularly grave

The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and sentences of A1, A2, and A3. Relief under the Probation of Offenders Act was denied due to the nature of the offence involving a breach of trust by a domestic servant and the use of violence. All pending applications were closed.